Golisano leaving WNY

[Mr. WEO]

A pretty big generalization, but one I won't argue with.

I do wonder why the military, which is run by the gov't seems to provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company. But, if that's not the case, maybe the US should contract all their defense needs to private companiesWhy would we spend so much of our taxes on the armed forces if we can get the job done better, and cheaper, elsewhere?

 

Do you really not know the answer? You couldn't pick a less appropriate example for your "question" (which includes a clear statement about your perception of the economic efficiency of the military).

 

There are the obvious practical reasons the state must fund its military (it is required by the constution, a democratic nation cannot command a private army...). and there are obvious economic reasons why government cannot, in general, "provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company" (without motive for profit, there is no motive for efficiency; private corporations have limited operating capital; the government has, functionally, unlimited operating capital).

 

Back in the toaster, Dean.

[SKOOBY]

Do you really not know the answer? You couldn't pick a less appropriate example for your "question" (which includes a clear statement about your perception of the economic efficiency of the military).

 

There are the obvious practical reasons the state must fund its military (it is required by the constution, a democratic nation cannot command a private army...). and there are obvious economic reasons why government cannot, in general, "provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company" (without motive for profit, there is no motive for efficiency; private corporations have limited operating capital; the government has, functionally, unlimited operating capital).

 

Back in the toaster, Dean.

 

We use the term "private contractors" but in reality they are corporate mercenaries.

[ChasBB]

Do you really not know the answer? You couldn't pick a less appropriate example for your "question" (which includes a clear statement about your perception of the economic efficiency of the military).

 

There are the obvious practical reasons the state must fund its military (it is required by the constution, a democratic nation cannot command a private army...). and there are obvious economic reasons why government cannot, in general, "provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company" (without motive for profit, there is no motive for efficiency; private corporations have limited operating capital; the government has, functionally, unlimited operating capital).

 

Back in the toaster, Dean.

Yes, I was also going to re-phrase my earlier argument about the gov't being inefficient because any military example is a bad one. The military is one function that MUST be funded by our government.

[Alaska Darin]

A pretty big generalization, but one I won't argue with.

 

I do wonder why the military, which is run by the gov't seems to provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company. But, if that's not the case, maybe the US should contract all their defense needs to private companies. Why would we spend so much of our taxes on the armed forces if we can get the job done better, and cheaper, elsewhere?

 

And, yes, there is a measure of sarcasm associated in that statement.

It's far more complicated than that.

 

The "military" doesn't provide services for less than contracted companies in most instances, especially if there is any measure of training/experience required.

 

The biggest reason to have "soldiers" is because they can't quit when the job is no longer to their liking without significant consequences.

 

We spend "so much of our taxes" on armed forces because Congress is incredibly corrupt and will not allow anything to be killed off/changed without significant financial detente. Welcome to why big government doesn't provide the service you're borrowing from your grandchildren's grandchildren to pay for.

[The Dean]

It's far more complicated than that.

 

The "military" doesn't provide services for less than contracted companies in most instances, especially if there is any measure of training/experience required.

 

The biggest reason to have "soldiers" is because they can't quit when the job is no longer to their liking without significant consequences.

 

We spend "so much of our taxes" on armed forces because Congress is incredibly corrupt and will not allow anything to be killed off/changed without significant financial detente. Welcome to why big government doesn't provide the service you're borrowing from your grandchildren's grandchildren to pay for.

 

 

I agree with most of this, except to say, it's even far more complicated than that. I used this little "analogy" as a jumping off place for discussion. At least you seemed to catch some of the nuances I was getting at.

 

I do think there are many things the US Military does for less money than can be contracted. One of the reasons, of course, is the contracted companies pay their "soldiers" a much higher rate.

 

But the generalization that the private sector can always do a job cheaper and/or better than government is also overly simplistic. I think the private sector is more efficient in the vast majority of situations, but effectiveness is another mater, entirely. While you are correct about the military being too big/corrupt, etc, mostly due to Congress, for the most part the goal of the Military remains the protection of the country and its citizens. The goal of private enterprise is to maximize profit. And while that usually helps efficiencies, it also can lead to a change in the proprieties and goals of the company. Maximizing the short-term profit for investors' $$, and require constant growth in that return, can lead to companies caring much less about their customers, quality of their "product" or even the industry in which they operate. That is even more true not that we've let some businesses get so big, and have so little competition, that their failure (often deserved) causes enormous problems for the overall economy.

 

Obviously, the Nation's defense is a little too important to leave to the the market. I would argue there are other areas that are too important, as well...but that's another matter, entirely.

 

And, of course, it is even more complicated than that.

 

Now, back to my original point: I don't really think this is all about the money for Tom...at least that's not the #1 reason, IMO. A guy who blows $100 Million dollars on a goal he has no chance to achieve (but won't spend an extra $10-$20 Million to give his hockey team a chance to compete for a championship) is used to doing things to make a statement. If he really lives more than 6 months of the year outside on NYS (a requirement for not paying NYS state taxes, I believe), I'm guessing that is a change from the past. He's "moving" 1,00+ miles away from his primary businesses, to an area with a higher cost of living (but no state income tax). Might he save some money by the move? Perhaps. Maybe even after the regular costs of spending more time in an area with higher prices, and the increased travel to and from WNY, he puts more cash in his pocket. But, I'm convinced that's not the reason for this move. He could have done this years ago. (I wonder if Florida Governor Crist's decision to run for Senate has anything to do with this?)

 

So, I say if he wants to move, that's fine by me. The NYS tax situation needs to be examined, and reformed. But, excuse me if I don't cry for a guy like Golisano, who has managed to become a billionaire by living, and doing business, in that very state, which has always had high taxes.

[ChasBB]

Now, back to my original point: I don't really think this is all about the money for Tom...at least that's not the #1 reason, IMO. A guy who blows $100 Million dollars on a goal he has no chance to achieve (but won't spend an extra $10-$20 Million to give his hockey team a chance to compete for a championship) is used to doing things to make a statement. If he really lives more than 6 months of the year outside on NYS (a requirement for not paying NYS state taxes, I believe), I'm guessing that is a change from the past. He's "moving" 1,00+ miles away from his primary businesses, to an area with a higher cost of living (but no state income tax). Might he save some money by the move? Perhaps. Maybe even after the regular costs of spending more time in an area with higher prices, and the increased travel to and from WNY, he puts more cash in his pocket. But, I'm convinced that's not the reason for this move. He could have done this years ago. (I wonder if Florida Governor Crist's decision to run for Senate has anything to do with this?)

What I don't get is how he really plans to save money. Any revenue from the hockey team will remain taxable in NYS. Any income from his business will remain taxable -- unless he brings his business with him. So long as his income is derived from NYS, he'll have to pay NYS taxes on it no matter where he lives.

[Captain Caveman]

What I don't get is how he really plans to save money. Any revenue from the hockey team will remain taxable in NYS. Any income from his business will remain taxable -- unless he brings his business with him. So long as his income is derived from NYS, he'll have to pay NYS taxes on it no matter where he lives.

 

At this point, most of his income is probably generated through investments (that tends to happen when you're worth 1.7 Billion dollars.) Any income gained from investments in stocks, bonds, savings etc..., which probably accounts for most of his income at this point will not be taxable in NY.

 

He's not making serious money (at least from him) from the Sabres, and since Paychex is public, I'm assuming owns a controlling interest of stock in the company rather than owning the company directly. Of course the company will still pay taxes wherever they do business, but that's not his personal income tax which is what we're talking about.

[Captain Caveman]

 

Can you even explain what half of these are and how they benefit you? Lottery?? Isn't that supposed to GENERATE money?

 

While you are at it, perhaps you can highlight which of these things are not available in Florida.

 

Pathetic that people can be this duped by an endless bureaucracy that only seeks endless expansion of its powers. No wonder we're headed off the cliff.

 

Please move to Florida, or stop bit$%ing.

[Fingon]

Mmmm. Sure.

And the $5 trillion hole that Bu$h dug for Americans is O.K.

Isn't it?

Yes, just like the $20 trillion hole Obama will put us in will be O.K.

[KD in CA]

Please move to Florida, or stop bit$%ing.

 

Good retort. Keep burying your head in the sand and defending the laughable "services" excuse the gov't attempts to sell so they can justify having you pay for retirement and health care for hundreds of thousands of gov't employees.

[Lurker]

so they can justify having you pay for retirement and health care for hundreds of thousands of gov't employees.

The real ticking time bomb to any discussion of state and local government tax and spending. The un-funded liabilities are terrifying...

[KD in CA]

The real ticking time bomb to any discussion of state and local government tax and spending. The un-funded liabilities are terrifying...

 

Shhhhh.......that's not a suitable topic for children's ears. I guess that's why it's rarely part of any budget discussion or the subject of any media attention.

 

Everything will be fine if we just make certain people pay "a little bit more".

[Lurker]

Shhhhh.......that's not a suitable topic for children's ears. I guess that's why it's rarely part of any budget discussion or the subject of any media attention.

 

Everything will be fine if we just make certain people pay "a little bit more".

While this is a better topic for PPP...somebody better start talking about it.

[BuffaloBill]

My guess is that he has had a place in Florida for many years. This just changes his "primary" residence and tax situation. If he wants to buy the Bills and if he wants to keep them in WNY (both big ifs) his place of residence matters little.

[KD in CA]

While this is a better topic for PPP...somebody better start talking about it.

 

Actually, I think that's the problem. People just lump this in as another "oh it's just politics" topic and ignores it.

 

This is stark economic reality that not only has not been addressed, but the politicians are activity trying to hide it from the public as we get closer to disaster. People don't understand the impact this has on them. Scary indeed.

[NewHampshireBillsFan]

Here's a quick breakdown of how the state spends your money, from http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBu...tiveBudget.html. There are a lot of things that people take for granted.

 

* Health Care

* Education

* STAR (Property Tax Relief)

* Local Government

* Mental Health

* Environment/Energy

* Human Services

* Economic Development

* State Workforce

* Higher Education

* Member Items

* Public Safety

* Transportation

* Revenue Actions

 

 

The thing is Florida also has these same programs, but run off state sales tax and other taxes. If you live in NYS you have an extremely high state income tax, AND extremely high sales tax, AND high property taxes. When I moved from Buffalo to Florida I found the services the state offered to be as good or better to what I had in Buffalo, but I paid a lot less taxes to get them. I have lived in Ohio, Florida, Texas, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, and now New Hampshire. New York state was by far the worst rip-off on taxes of any place I have lived and I didn't miss any of the great "services" NYS offered in any of the other states I lived in. I rarely meet homeless people and never panhandlers in New Hampshire but I see them all the time in the streets of New York state cities when I visit, for example.

[Captain Caveman]

Good retort. Keep burying your head in the sand and defending the laughable "services" excuse the gov't attempts to sell so they can justify having you pay for retirement and health care for hundreds of thousands of gov't employees.

 

I'm burying my head in the sand? Ask yourself, who has controlled the state for most of the past 30 years? What has been their policy? How did we get where we are?

 

As for the homeless in this state, how many of them are on the streets as a direct result of cuts to public health programs? Most of the wave of homeless caused by cuts to Mental Health Facilities during the Reagan years are dead by now, but it doesn't mean continued cuts haven't led to a new wave of homeless in metropolitan areas.

 

My wife works in NYC schools, and while there certainly is some mismanagement happening, believe me if they are not better funded (and managed) you haven't seen the beginning of our problems.

[The Dean]

Here's a quick breakdown of how the state spends your money, from http:

 

The thing is Florida also has these same programs

 

 

That's some pretty amusing stuff, right there. C'mon down here, and "feel the quality" of the gov't services. You'll think you've died and gone to Mexico.

[Alaska Darin]

That's some pretty amusing stuff, right there. C'mon down here, and "feel the quality" of the gov't services. You'll think you've died and gone to Mexico.

I've lived all over the country and the "quality" of government services is pretty much the same. If you're lucky enough to get the one person in the office who cares about their job, then you'll have a good experience, the other 99% of the time...

 

New York States' "services" are just as poor as everywhere else, they simply cost more and have the added "benefit" of driving away virtually every business.

[The Dean]

I've lived all over the country and the "quality" of government services is pretty much the same. If you're lucky enough to get the one person in the office who cares about their job, then you'll have a good experience, the other 99% of the time...

 

New York States' "services" are just as poor as everywhere else, they simply cost more and have the added "benefit" of driving away virtually every business.

 

 

As Bob Barker would say, "Come on Down!"

 

If Tommy moves his business here, I think he will see the difference between the workforce in Rochester, when compared to most places in Florida.